Living Car FreeDo you live car free or car light? Do you prefer to use alternative transportation (bicycles, walking, other human-powered or public transportation) for everyday activities whenever possible? Discuss your lifestyle here.

We talk about whether it could work, but while we discuss, some investors are taking action. An apartment tower in downtown Miami... home of the automobile.

Quote:

But as for parking? Zero of that.

Not for private motor vehicles, anyway. The Centro, as itís called, will have a five-car Car2Go auto share station featuring the city-backed serviceís distinctive, blue-and-white Smart cars; covered bike parking; and, if Miami gets bike share, maybe one of those stations as well. The project breaks ground this fall.

It may be a success, but I think most people will be paying for parking elsewhere. I kind of think the car share with only 5 cars isn't meant as a serious alternative - with 350 units, there will likely be 500-700 people living there, which is way too many people even if they only drive 2-4 times per month.

Similar urban areas prior to this marketing angle would just have said 'building has no parking.' They mention parking available a block away. 5 share/cars is still a step in the right direction. If you can afford a mortgage and the HOA fees there, your probably not shopping for a condo that has share/cars. It is a unique amenity.

It may be a success, but I think most people will be paying for parking elsewhere. I kind of think the car share with only 5 cars isn't meant as a serious alternative - with 350 units, there will likely be 500-700 people living there, which is way too many people even if they only drive 2-4 times per month.

But they will probably use their cars much less if they walk a couple blocks to get them--especially if they walk past many shopping amenities and transit access on the way.

The on-premises share cars are brilliant, and I suppose more can be added as needed. Many carfree people use rental cars two to four times per year, not per month.

Besides, I think the point is that the inhabitants are committed to using cars much less or not at all. This building is designed to be convenient for people who are already carfree, or want to be.

Ask Portland if simply eliminating/reducing parking for apartments works to get people out of their cars...

I'm afraid I lost Portland's phone number. Can you share a link or two that answers this question?

Also, keep in mind that this development didn't simply eliminate parking. It also included car share, covered bike parking, and a location near to amenities and public transit. I don't think the purpose is to get people out of their cars. I think the purpose is to cater to people who have already decided to get out of their cars.

I'm afraid I lost Portland's phone number. Can you share a link or two that answers this question?

Also, keep in mind that this development didn't simply eliminate parking. It also included car share, covered bike parking, and a location near to amenities and public transit. I don't think the purpose is to get people out of their cars. I think the purpose is to cater to people who have already decided to get out of their cars.

That's an interesting article. Portland developers can build buildings without car parking, but only in areas close to good public transit, and it's a good deal for the developers, because the building costs less to build, or they can build more units on smaller lots, and there's a shortage of housing, so people are still willing to rent an apartment with no parking, even if they own a car. However, because some residents of these no car-park buildings still own cars, they end up parking on the street causing congestion. Some neighbours are annoyed by this, or just don't like these new buildings

So now they're debating adjusting the rules.

Sounds like just normal growing pains as the city's plans to encourage density and less car usage evolve over time.

That's an interesting article. Portland developers can build buildings without car parking, but only in areas close to good public transit, and it's a good deal for the developers, because the building costs less to build, or they can build more units on smaller lots, and there's a shortage of housing, so people are still willing to rent an apartment with no parking, even if they own a car. However, because some residents of these no car-park buildings still own cars, they end up parking on the street causing congestion. Some neighbours are annoyed by this, or just don't like these new buildings

So now they're debating adjusting the rules.

Sounds like just normal growing pains as the city's plans to encourage density and less car usage evolve over time.

Yes, that was precisely the point of my post. Simply not producing infrastructure for a given mode doesn't actually prevent people from wanting (and insisting) on using that mode--as Portland seems to be learning. If the OP complex is desirable for other reasons, it is likely that people will move in who own cars. And they will find someplace nearby for those cars.

I feel like this article cherry picked a one sided argument about 1 neighborhood and tried to apply it to a whole city... unsuccessfully at that. The whole premise is that 'people are angry and want more parking' without taking a poll; they're just interviewing individuals. Eventually they come out and state the facts:

"On-street parking also does not appear to be that difficult to find on Division Street, the epicenter of the apartment boom. Ample spaces were found during three recent visits to the neighborhood, on different days and at different times."

I don't dismiss this article because it's from Fox. I do dismiss it because it's a poorly one-sided opinion piece.

Furthermore, reducing the convenience of a resource definitively reduces the usage of that resource, as the costs involved increase. It applies to cars just like everything else, you can't change economics.

Ryan McGuire, 30, moved to Portland from St. Paul, Minn., last year and lives in the 50-unit Irvington Garden Apartments. The building in northeast Portland has more than 50 bike racks but no parking.
McGuire said he and his girlfriend both have bikes and share one car. As the city survey suggests, McGuire said he keeps a car to go snowboarding and "haul stuff."

My own personal opinion is that cars should be outlawed. That would solve a lot of problems [Can I say this here? Is there a 15th amendment that protects the individual's right to over-the-top transportation?]

...Simply not producing infrastructure for a given mode doesn't actually prevent people from wanting (and insisting) on using that mode....

It could be argued that a lack of appropriate infrastructure during the last century prevented many people from using bicycles for transportation. We can only hope that the same will happen with cars in the next hundred years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlanoFuji

If the OP complex is desirable for other reasons, it is likely that people will move in who own cars. And they will find someplace nearby for those cars.

So what? It will only be some who will have cars, and the community will be better off because they all don't.

My own personal opinion is that cars should be outlawed. That would solve a lot of problems [Can I say this here? Is there a 15th amendment that protects the individual's right to over-the-top transportation?]

That's why I have a car too though, that guy's quote is word for word what I would say.
We had a street car in the early 20th century that brought people to the nordic/alpine ski areas but now there's nothing. Up here I enjoy going to do xc skiing in the winter, I wouldn't be able to without the car.
Plus if I want to go on a weekend away, I have the car.

The bike is my recreation and my day to day work/shopping is on foot. Car is a luxury to go long distances.

FWIW I live in an apartment building, about, 35 units, built c. 1970 with one parking space per unit. I regularly see my neighbors' second and in a few cases third cars parked on the streets nearby. So yeah, putting up apartment buildings without parking spaces will create parking problems, but those problems are probably there already in a lot of places where there are no buildings without parking spaces.

In urban areas cars seem to max out whatever infrastructure is created for them. And if all the bikes in the US were to disappear overnight, the same streets, highways, and parking lots that are congested or maxed out now would remain congested or maxed out, if not even worse.

Yes, that was precisely the point of my post. Simply not producing infrastructure for a given mode doesn't actually prevent people from wanting (and insisting) on using that mode--as Portland seems to be learning. If the OP complex is desirable for other reasons, it is likely that people will move in who own cars. And they will find someplace nearby for those cars.

The two complainants quoted in the article (Golden and Varga) were both at least as much concerned about the size of the buildings as about the parking issue, and whenever you build something new, some people in the area are going to be opposed to it, so I'm not even sure the parking is the real issue here - Fox may have overstated that part of the story.